PLA25-027 Staff Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. When one or more lots or parcels subject to a proposed property line adjustment are larger than the minimum parcel size pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section, the same number of lots or parcels shall be as large or larger than the minimum parcel size after the adjustment. When all lots or parcels subject to the proposed adjustment are as large or larger than the minimum parcel size, no lot or parcel shall be reduced below the applicable minimum parcel size. If all lots or parcels are smaller than th e minimum parcel size before the property line adjustment, the minimum parcel size pursuant to this section does not apply to those lots or parcels. The EFU zoned parcel in this proposal is larger than the 80-acre minimum lot size when considering the true size of the legal lot (see discussion in finding 2). The proposal at hand would transfer roughly half an acre of land from the EFU zoned parcel to the AR zoned parcel. This would not bring the EFU zoned parcel below the 80-acre minimum parcel size. The criterion is met. 2. If the minimum parcel size in subsection (A)(1) of this section is larger than 80 acres, and a lot or parcel subject to property line adjustment is smaller than the minimum parcel size but larger than 80 acres, the lot or parcel shall not be reduced in size through property line adjustment to less than 80 acres. The calculated local minimum parcel size is not larger than 80-acres, so this criterion does not apply. 3. Any property line adjustment shall result in a configuration of lots or parcels that are at least as suitable for commercial agriculture as were the parcels prior to the adjustment. The portion of property that would be transferred by this proposal is the subject of an adverse possession as the fence line, thought to be placed along the property line, was sited within the bounds of tax lot 100. This portion of property was assumed and utilized by the AR zoned parcel (tax lot 300) as being part of that property. This transfer of land would better reflect the historical use of the land and is an area of the property not dedicated to farm use. As such, it would not result in the EFU zoned parcel being less suitable for commercial agriculture. The criterion is met. 4. A property line adjustment may not be used to: a. Decrease the size of a lot or parcel that, before the relocation or elimination of the common property line, is smaller than the minimum lot or parcel size for the applicable zone and contains an existing dwelling or is approved for the construction of a dwelling, if the abutting vacant tract would be increased to a size as large as or larger than the minimum tract size required to qualify the vacant tract for a dwelling; The legal parcels involved in this proposal both already contain dwellings, therefore no vacant tracts would be qualified for a dwelling as a result of the proposal. The criterion is met. b. Decrease the size of a lot or parcel that contains an existing dwelling or is approved for construction of a dwelling to a size smaller than the minimum lot or parcel size, if the abutting vacant tract would be increased to a size as large as or larger tha n the minimum tract size required to qualify the vacant tract for a dwelling; The legal parcels involved in this proposal both already contain dwellings, therefore no vacant tracts would be qualified for a dwelling as a result of the proposal. The criterion is met. c. Allow an area of land used to qualify a tract for a dwelling based on an acreage standard to be used to qualify another tract for a dwelling if the land use approval would be based on an acreage standard; or The previous land use case that impacted the EFU zoned parcel did approve a replacement dwelling, but that was the replacement of a previously existing dwelling. The previous dwelling was not qualified for through a land use approval and none of the involved EFU land has been used to qualify for a dwelling. The criterion is met.